This paper argues from a libertarian perspective that government interference in market economies produces more harm than good. Drawing on scholarship by Ehrlich and Lui, Manor, Qian and Weingast, Krueger, and Stiglitz, the paper examines how political corruption, centralized resource control, and distortive regulatory policies undermine free enterprise and economic growth. It contends that decentralization places resources in the hands of people rather than politically connected elites, and that allowing market signals to operate without interference — including permitting failing institutions to fail — produces more efficient outcomes than state-directed intervention.
The paper models the concession-and-rebuttal technique: it grants the strongest version of the opposing view (state-guided growth in East Asia) before dismantling it with a competing source. This technique signals intellectual honesty and strengthens the author's overall argument by showing awareness of complexity.
The paper follows a classic five-paragraph-style argumentative structure scaled to a short essay: an introductory claim establishing the libertarian premise; two body paragraphs developing supporting arguments (decentralization and corruption); one paragraph on market incentives and bailouts; a counterargument paragraph with rebuttal; and a brief conclusion restating the thesis. Citations are presented in MLA-style Works Cited format, though in-text citations follow an APA-like author-date pattern.
The recent presidential election was billed as a choice between two visions for America. Unfortunately for voters, many other visions were not presented as viable options. Had those options been presented, voters may well have chosen them. One such alternative political philosophy is libertarianism, which holds that government should interfere as little as possible in the daily lives of Americans. This is especially true in the economic realm. Whether through regulation or tax handouts to powerful donor lobbies, the two major parties are equally culpable for creating needless burdens that constrict the growth of the American economic engine.
Decentralization of government is a key concept in this discussion. Manor (1999) notes that there has been a global trend toward the decentralization of government. This trend is occurring because governments recognize that decentralization can spur economic growth and alleviate rural poverty by placing greater control over resources in the hands of the people rather than centralized authorities.
One of the most significant problems with large, interventionist government is that governments are inherently prone to corruption. There is little fundamental difference between an official in the developing world demanding a bribe to sign paperwork and an official in Washington writing laws that favor his campaign donors. Corruption lies at the intersection of money and politics. Because politicians have access to and control over critical resources, corruption inevitably colors the governance process, creating barriers to free enterprise (Ehrlich & Lui, 1999).
It is a shame that voters in America only face a binary choice with respect to the role of government in the economy. Government interventions only distort market signals, creating perverse incentives and adverse outcomes. Removing corruption and poor policy choices frees up resources to be used more efficiently than when the whims of government officials dictate their allocation. When people are free from such interference, economic growth is the natural consequence.
You’re 45% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.